Blogs
Featured Entries
-
Last Goodbyes
By TheBluegrassSkeptic
Death for me over the years has rarely been difficult to process and move on. I've buried quite a few, only mourned a couple. The two I mourn are now memories I guard so earnestly a mother bear could not rival my ferocity. These two people immediately bring on the wet eyes and short tight breaths when I just so much as think on their lives, their influence, and my loss. This past January I experienced a third loss of someone very important in my life. It's hit me very hard, and I am surprise- 0 comments
- 1,675 views
Our community blogs
-
- 143
entries - 368
comments - 169304
views
Recent Entries
The recent Rapture prediction for September 23, 2023, ignited a whirlwind of emotions within me. As an ardent atheist, I approached the prediction with skepticism and rationality. However, lurking beneath the layers of disbelief were haunting memories of my traumatic childhood abuse and the desperation I once felt as a Christian child, yearning for confirmation of Christ's existence. This blog post explores the intricate tapestry of emotions where my adult self grapples with the collision of logic, the wounded inner child seeking hope, and the relentless quest for divine confirmation.
Atheism and the Citadel of Rationality
Deep within the recesses of my psyche lies the shadowy abyss of a traumatic childhood. As an innocent child, I endured unimaginable abuse and neglect. In the midst of this turmoil, I yearned for a savior—a divine presence to rescue me from the horrors that surrounded me. The idea of the Rapture, a divine event promising salvation, resonated deeply with the child who had once cried out for help but found only silence.
In the years that followed, I embarked on a journey of reason and enlightenment, leaving behind the comforts of religious faith. I embraced reason and enlightenment as guiding principles of my life. The quest for truth and understanding became paramount. I delved into the realms of science, philosophy, and critical thinking with an insatiable hunger for knowledge. It was as if I had discovered a treasure trove of wisdom that offered a clearer lens through which to view the world.
One of the most challenging aspects of this journey was leaving behind the comforts of religious faith. For years, faith had been a refuge, a source of solace in the face of life's uncertainties. It provided answers to questions I had dared not ask and offered a sense of belonging to a greater cosmic narrative. Letting go of these comforting illusions was like relinquishing a security blanket—a process fraught with doubt and apprehension.
Eventually, I found myself firmly grounded in atheism. It wasn't just a rejection of the supernatural; it was a profound shift in perspective. It was the realization that the universe, though vast and wondrous, did not require a divine hand to explain its mysteries. The natural world, with its intricate laws and processes, became a source of awe and wonder in its own right. Armed with the tools of skepticism, I examined religious claims with a discerning eye. Rapture predictions, in particular, came under scrutiny. I could now see the fallacies in the reasoning behind such predictions—the selective interpretation of ancient texts, the reliance on vague prophecies, and the pattern of unfulfilled promises throughout history. It was a process of intellectual liberation, a shedding of the shackles of dogma.
The Emotional Clash: Wrestling with Skepticism and Childhood Yearnings
The emotional clash that envelops me is like a relentless tug-of-war, a battle of belief systems and inner turmoil that plays out in the depths of my soul. It's a paradox that transcends time, where my rational adult self, fortified by the armor of skepticism, faces off against the vulnerable child self that we all experience in one form or another. In my case, it's still nursing the wounds of a painful past and craving something more profound than reason can provide.
On one side of this emotional battlefield stands my rational self, a sentinel of skepticism. I've armed myself with the tools of critical thinking and empirical evidence, and I'm fully cognizant of the absurdity of Rapture predictions and the seeming impossibility of divine intervention. The intellectual citadel I've built stands tall, defending me against the allure of fantastical beliefs. I can dissect the flawed logic and the lack of empirical support, and I see through the dubious claims of prophets and seers.
On the opposing side stands a wounded child, bearing the scars of unresolved conflict from decades ago. Her voice is just a small whisper but resonates with a powerfully poignant longing. She remembers a time when faith was a lifeline—a beacon of hope in a world shrouded in darkness. She recalls how, as a Christian child, she yearned for confirmation of Christ's existence, desperately seeking solace in the spiritual realm. In those formative years, I was like a spiritual detective, earnestly investigating the divine mysteries. I attended church services with fervor, clasped my hands in prayer with sincerity, and gazed skyward with anticipation, hoping for signs from above. Every small sign, every moment of spiritual connection, felt like a lifeline to my faith—a confirmation that Christ was indeed present. It was a quest for validation, a desperate plea for tangible evidence that my beliefs were grounded in reality.
However, as I grew older and began questioning my faith, those signs I had once fervently sought began to fade. The spiritual connections waned, and the unanswered questions multiplied. It was a tumultuous period marked by doubt and a sense of abandonment. In an act of defiance and desperation, I even went so far as to elicit Satan's punishment, for if one divine force existed, did not the other? This was a moment of crisis, an attempt to provoke a response from the spiritual realm, a last-ditch effort to find confirmation even in the face of disbelief.
This conflict, where the rational adult confronts the yearning child, is not easily resolved. It's a complex interplay of emotions, where skepticism and hope collide. The journey toward reconciliation involves acknowledging the significance of the inner child's yearnings and the depth of the quest for confirmation. It's about recognizing that the wounds of the past still echo in the present and that addressing them is a path toward inner peace and emotional harmony. Such struggles are a frequently heard testament to the enduring power of childhood beliefs and the profound impact of trauma. It's a reminder that the human psyche is a complex tapestry of experiences, and reconciling conflicting emotions requires compassion, introspection, and an understanding of the fragile balance between reason and longing.
Reconciliation through Self-Compassion
Navigating this tumultuous emotional terrain is akin to embarking on a profound journey of self-discovery, one that demands not only empathy but also deep introspection and self-compassion. It's a pilgrimage through the labyrinth of one's own psyche, where the echoes of the past reverberate in the present.
1. Acknowledging the Significance of Inner Child's Yearnings
To begin this journey, one must first come face to face with the significance of their inner child's yearnings. The ache for divine confirmation was not just a passing fancy for many of us; it was a desperate plea for reassurance during a time of vulnerability. Personally, in the midst of my tumultuous childhood, the concept of a loving deity and the hope of Christ's presence provided solace. It was a lifeline for a child who desperately needed something to hold onto, a glimmer of light in the darkness. Recognizing the depth of this need is essential to understanding the emotional complexities at play.
2. Extending Empathy to the Child Within
My childhood quest for divine confirmation was not born out of blind devotion but was, in fact, a sincere expression of faith. As a young believer, I attended church services with a fervor that only a child's heart can muster. I prayed earnestly, seeking guidance and connection. Every fleeting moment of spiritual communion felt like a confirmation of my faith, a validation of my belief in Christ's existence. It was an honest, heartfelt pursuit of the divine, driven by the innocence and purity of youth.
As we navigate this emotional terrain, it's imperative to extend empathy to your inner child. Whether it bears the scars of abuse and the yearnings for divine confirmation or was completely gaslighted and bred naivete, it deserves understanding and compassion. Instead of dismissing these emotions as irrational or inconsequential, acknowledge its validity. This inner child was, in many ways, a survivor—a resilient spirit who clung to hope amidst despair.
3. Addressing Lingering Emotional Wounds
To truly reconcile the conflicting emotions of the adult self and inner child, you can't let these emotional wounds linger. The scars of childhood trauma do not simply fade away with time; they require acknowledgment and healing. This journey involves seeking professional help, talking to trusted friends and confidants, and engaging in therapeutic practices that promote emotional well-being. It means recognizing that the wounds of the past can continue to influence the present and that addressing them is a step toward inner peace and emotional harmony.
The latest Rapture prediction of this month wasn't merely a matter of religious belief or skepticism. It unveiled a complex emotional landscape within me. As an atheist, I could dissect the prediction's irrationality, but the echoes of my Christian childhood and the desperate quest for divine confirmation were undeniable. This journey of self-discovery is a testament to the intricate interplay of emotions and the enduring power of past experiences to shape our present. It's a reminder that, even in the face of skepticism, the inner child still yearns for solace and confirmation, even if that confirmation lies beyond the boundaries of reason.
- 143
-
- 67
entries - 73
comments - 47410
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The evolution of Political Ideologies as we age
I recently hit my 30s and I've realised over the last couple years a couple things have happened. Firstly, as I keep getting older the X that marks the left simply keeps moving to the left of me and secondly, not only was the X moving to the left as I stood stationary, I myself am now moving to the right of my own accord. I'm not even that old, and I feel in general I am losing touch with what's current. It continues to be a weird transition for me; to move from the "happening crowd" to the lepers on the outskirts of society.
Right now I am at an interesting crossroads politically speaking. Political ideology is inherently selfish. When you're young, you tend to have nothing and policies that you give something for nothing sound very enticing. Yet, when you get older you now have something and those same policies you once liked now mean you get nothing, but something is now taken away from you. As an aside from that, I feel like as you get older your horizons tend to broaden. I know with myself personally that I once tarred all conservatives with the same brush. In essence, they're selfish, heartless and racist idiots.
Now that I've spent some time getting familiar with conservative talking points "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak, this characterisation no longer seems fair. But (and this is a big but), I don't think those claims are completely baseless either. We all prefer to see the world as black and white, and as I get older I realise that this is just as true of me as it is others. It's easy to switch camps, it's harder to sit somewhere in the middle disagreeing with both about some points, and agreeing still on others. This is where I am currently sitting.
I guess if I were to summarise my current transition, it is to say that I've moved from a big "S" socialist to a small "s" socialist. Not earth shattering I know, but I am beginning to realise that not every government solution helps the people and that a paternal hand upon society can quickly turn into a yolk. For me I care most for looking after people and care for the economy insofar as it supports the goal of looking after people. Because of this I don't ever see myself becoming a libertarian or otherwise conservative due to this inherent focus of mine, but let's see where this goes.
In closing, this quote was something I came across during an interview the other day and I find it rather apt for how I feel about where I am at currently:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; andany man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. - 67
-
- 27
entries - 53
comments - 40321
views
Recent Entries
She gave a speech today in which she basically rehashed all her old talking points: Obama is evil and probably not "really" American, lawmakers are all evil bastards, guns are awesome, down-home aw-shucks snowbilly Alaskan proverbs about dogsleds, she is very pretty, she has tits (no, really), she is still bitter about 2008, she still thinks teleprompters are evil (I assume because they involve reading), the Midwest is Jesus-land and Midwesterners are the awesomest people ever, reality TV is evil and politicians shouldn't emulate it and she very much hopes we've all forgotten she left politics to try to have one of her own, and she is willing to TAKE A BRAVE AND NOBLE STAND by drinking a Big Gulp RIGHT THERE on stage, etc. I'm still wondering if it was an SNL skit and the GOP is miffed we all missed the joke.What really struck me most is that a big part of her speech centered around how the GOP should forget facts, figures, statistics, and consultants and just keep doing what they "know" is right. By that presumably she means the GOP should continue to be anti-civil rights and anti-women's rights, to keep picking at the Separation Clause, to keep pushing gun rights on a society sick of gun crimes, and to keep denying science so the fundies won't feel too threatened, and oh yes, to keep pushing candidates who are too crazy to win elections. No, she thinks it's genuinely shameful that some Republicans are starting to speak out against the GOP's habit of running ultra-fundie candidates and that some think tanks and advisors are advising against it. She thinks think-tanks and DC advisors are evil too, incidentally. Of course, one such advisory council got her to the vice-presidency candidacy, but like her failed TV show, she's hoping we don't remember that either.
She still hasn't figured it out. Hell, the GOP in general still hasn't figured it out.
Subjective feelings do not substitute for objective facts. There's a reason why focus groups, advisors, think-tanks, and pollsters are used. They work--which is why pollsters knew like a year in advance that Obama was going to win. The GOP itself has a tendency to shoot its messengers when the objective facts don't mesh with their subjective wishes. That's why six months after the election they STILL don't really understand why they actually lost!
The GOP lost because people don't want what they're selling. Flinging shit harder at people won't make them open their mouths any more than flinging it gently did. Pandering to the Religious Right doesn't work. The solution is not to pander harder; the solution is to stop pandering. But the GOP hasn't heard the definition of insanity quite yet. They think there's a way to package racism, sexism, and theocracy in a way that will appeal to voters. Give 'em time; they're just now coming around to gay marriage. In 50 years they might be kind of okay with women in high office sometimes... IF they're married with kids, too dimwitted to be a real threat, very fundie, and also very hot.
And: Only an American redneck could ever think that eating and drinking junk food is a noble thing that should be made a point of at a major political rally. Sarah Palin's last big stand involved eating fast-food chicken sandwiches, for chrissakes. I'm all for boycotting businesses whose practices violate my own conscience, but JUNK FOOD? What, is this Nazi Germany and she's scared that if she doesn't stuff her face with sugar and fatty food that next "they" could come for her radishes? Way to go, Sarah Palin. You sure showed us evil lib'ruls by ingesting a sugar bomb on stage.
Her political showboating failed utterly; she just came off as a catty, not terribly bright, passive-aggressive soccer mom/ex-beauty queen type with an axe to grind and a desperate need for attention. It's just so sad that out of all the women in the GOP, *THIS* was what the GOP considers an ideal female politician. I don't think it's possible for the GOP to make clearer to America that they're terrified of women in power. I'm somewhere between absolutely disgusted and totally amused at this display of ignorance and fundie-pandering.
The silver lining: if the GOP still thinks she's a relevant political voice, then women's and gays' rights and the Separation Clause are perfectly safe for another election or so. We ex-Christians can breathe easily.
- 27
-
Latest Entry
Logical Fallacies: Argument From Ignorance
During my deconversion process, I had given up the idea that the Bible was without error. There was contradictions, not just within the text itself, but within the content, as well. Claiming the Bible was inerrant, became increasingly difficult for me to accept. I came to the decision that God did not pass along a perfect document, but maybe there was still truth that you can get from it. The Bible seemed more like it was a collection of various thoughts and interactions with God. And, if that was true, than I could still get something from it. I had given up any beliefs of a young Earth, a true Adam and Eve, the Biblical story about the Earth's origins, Noah's Flood ...etc. I had given up quite a lot. All these things had an enormous amount of evidence to demonstrate that the Bible was inaccurate. But, the one thing I had clung to was the argument of the Prime Mover. God must exist because there would be no other way for the universe or life to come into existence on it's own. It was around this time that I began to discover the logical fallacies.
If you look up the logical fallacies online there are giant lists of them. In practice, there seems to be only a handful that are used over and over again. The most common ones are: Argument from Ignorance, Argument, from Antiquity, Straw man Fallacy, Ad Hominem, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Complexity, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Emotion, No True Scotsman, and the Slippery Slope Argument. These are the logical fallacies that I run into, pretty much, on the daily basis.
Logical fallacies can only be fallacies when they point to a flaw in reasoning. There may be some cases when an argument may seem like a fallacy, but is not actually flawed reasoning. For example, an appeal to popularity, doesn't demonstrate something is true or valid, but appealing to popularity maybe valid if you are only interested in what is common to that group. Christianity is the most common religion in America, so I am more likely to run into a Christian in American than not. I am not claiming that Christianity is true, only that it's popular in America.
The flaw in my reasoning about the origins of the universe and life is that I was making an Argument from Ignorance. Another way to state my argument above is, "We don't know or understand how the universe or life began, therefore it must have been a God." The first half the statement is in contradiction to the second half. By claiming ignorance, it is then illogical to claim to know how these origins began.
I find the Argument from Ignorance used most often when a theist is claiming that science can't explain something, and therefore it's acceptable to believe that their belief is true. Each truth claim must be supported by it's own evidence. The lack of evidence for one truth claim doesn't then validate another. If someone has a belief that some God-like entity is responsible for some event, the existence of this entity would first have to be demonstrated, and then they would also have to provide evidence that this entity is capable of doing the things that they are claiming it has done. Without the evidence, the claim is unreasonable to accept. Simply saying. "You don't have an answer, so my answer is true" is flawed reasoning. And, that is the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
- 21
entries - 37
comments - 29409
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Relaxation And Realizations
During my hiatus I've begun to regularly consume a certain herb of questionable legal status. I was sitting in the storage area underneath my residence, smoking a bowl in the dimly lit area with only my new puppy for company. I had some chill EDM tunes playing on my phone. It was a quiet night on the plains, a little chilly in the unheated underbelly of a relic. Wrapped in my jacket, preparing for lift off...
I realized how insignificant humanity is. Now I can't turn that realization off. We think that we are so freakin' special, each and every one of us this wonderfully unique creation. They tell us that in church, they tell us that in school, and those of us that grew up during the era of the self-esteem cult can never escape it. Until one day when we reach terminal velocity and crash through the ceilings of our own minds. Blast through the lowest orbit like a SpaceX rocket and smash the expectations of this boring Earthbound existence of all mortal beings.
Picture it! This world all a dream! What we see isn't real and what we feel is all lies! We are led around by our desires and we deny it. I saw it and now I'm sick. Mentally unwound. Oh, sure...it all seems so glorious to pull at the strings of the carefully woven tapestry that attaches us to the realities that we know. But let me tell you, it's not so much fun as it is sobering. Once you really realize how fragile it all is and how much of life is thinly veiled bullshit controlled by faraway string-pullers, it kills you.
In some deep way that I can't touch, I'm already dead. Just like Jesus. I can't understand why people follow a dead guy. A murder victim. Isn't there someone out there who's alive, who survived? 2000 years and we're still talking about a guy who died and supposedly came back to life only to ascend to a plane of existence that we can't verify yet we trust? I don't think that people throughout time were idiots or anything. Just that they were forced to pledge alligience to a dead guy to avoid their own deaths.
Coerced belief never lasts. I think there's a genetic component to belief resistance that takes awhile to be bred out. Early adapters build persuasive but exclusive cults with elaborate traditions that only those that are born into the faith can understand. I've always found Judaism to be an interesting case because only Jewish women can give birth to Jewish children, even sons. If you read the OT, you see that is what is behind the subjugation of women and why the OT guys were so hung up on virgins, purity, idols, etc.
I suppose that's why I don't understand the fascination that some people have with being Jewish like Jesus. You can't technically become Jewish. You have to be born Jewish. Female converts to Judaism can have Jewish children, but stopping short of conversion means that you aren't Jewish and therefore, your children aren't Jewish either. Yet they want to claim that they are "truly Jewish" and all that.
Of course, I've always been technically minded. That is why faith is such an issue for me. It's not that I can't entertain fantastical ideas, it's that I can usually find faults with said fantasties. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess, but I'd rather explore my own depths than seek an intimate relationship with a dead guy.
This is the first part of a rambling rant that I wrote in my "relaxation time" journal recently. I thought that maybe this would resonate with some people in the ex-c community. No idea why my mind turned to faith. I don't focus too much on my lack of belief or whatever these days...
- 21
-
- 15
entries - 15
comments - 29322
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The Horror Story I Told In The Chatroom
Last night my friend told me his story at the bar, he was horrified, but he had to tell me. He was trekking through a forest in a Northern European country. He had a compass, a map and his backpack was filled with a tent and sleeping bag. The load weighed heavier on his back, his eyes was heavy lidded. He got more and more tired, he had to find a good place to set up the tent. He trekked through still more forest until he found a flat patch of ground that would have been near water.
He set up the tent and his bed. He had food and started to dress for bed.
Anyway, the bed was uncomfortable. The air got colder. He fitfully slept.
Each time he woke up and went back to sleep, unbeknownst to him, a tool by tool that he needed for getting out of the forest vanished.
Something that wasn't branches lashed against the thin layer of his tent. That finally woke him up.
The tent door opened, seemingly by itself. His breath got shallower, as the zip unzipped, there was no shadow on the door.
His body did not move for fear. A whoosh of air and he was carried as if he was Gulliver but he could see nothing but the ground and he was in his bedclothes as he floated out of the tent.
He floated until he was into a cave, into its darkness.
It was utterly dark, he heard only water on the ground.
Then the cave lightened and he gasped.
Innumerable tiny grey creatures swaying back and forth, whispering as one...
His mind was polluted with the most gruesome images. He described it as him seeing the worst of the world. Fishes devouring their young; a Nazi skinning a person; jaws suddenly detached in accidents. There were infinitely worse images I shall not attempt to describe.
The creatures then whispered to him, "Do not come to the forest. The forest is dead. Humans, you did this to us, you cut down the creatures of the forest." Then he saw his foot being set on and his bare feet's smallest toe got taken off.
He did not feel pain, he merely saw blood pouring out of his stump. The creatures said to him, "This is how we feel when you cut down a single tree."
Then pain came down like a bunch of bricks.
He screamed and screamed.
They carried him back to his tent and they put his cellphone in his hand.
He frantically dialled the cellphone as he staunched his wound.
Then he spoke to the medical service of the country.
After he made the call, he fainted.
He woke up in the hospital.
Well, the thing is, he showed me the stump.
I believed him.
Years after...
I found out the horrible truth.
His ex-girlfriend cut off his toe because he abused her for years and she had enough.
- 15
-
- 29
entries - 19
comments - 29315
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
A Partial History Of The End Of The World
The End of the World is a common belief among all religions, but the Christians have really made a “career” of End of the World predictions:
2800 BCE – An Assyrian clay tablet declares, “Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common.
634 BCE – Many Romans believe Rome will be destroyed 120 years following it founding as foretold by twelve eagles that once appeared to Romulus, each believed to represent 10 years,
6th Century BCE (actually written in 2nd Century BCE) – The Book of Daniel predicts the End of Time. He declares, “ I kept looking in the night visions and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like the Son of Man was coming [7:13]. The author also mentions that many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. [12:2]
Early 1st Century CE??? – Jesus declared, “This generation shall not pass away until all will be fulfilled.” Early Christians believed the End would occur during their lifetime. Jesus also said, “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” [Matthew 16:28]
66-70 CE – The Essenes, a Jewish ascetic sect with apocalyptic beliefs, man have interpreted the Jewish revolt against the Romans as the final battle.
70 CE – The founder of the founder of the 19th century Opeida sect, John Humphrey Noyes, claimed the Second Advent had already taken place with the fall of Jerusalem (naturally, with only believers seeing it).
Late 1st Century CE – The Book of Revelation foretells an apocalypse followed by the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
The ecstatic Montanists held that Christ was to arrive during their generation and was to appear at Pepuza, in Phrygia (in modern Turkey), designated by the group as “New Jerusalem”.
247 CE – As Rome celebrates it’s thousandth anniversary, persecutions increase against Christians, making many of them believe the world was coming to an end.
365 CE – The famous Christian saint, Hilary of Poitiers, believes the world would end this year.
380 CE – A North African sect, the Donatists, asserted this year marked the End.
Late 4th Century – St. Martin of Tours declared, “There is no doubt that the Antichrist has already been born. Firmly established, already in his early years he will, after reaching maturity, achieve supreme power.”
500 CE – Julius Africanus (160-240) theorized that the world would end approximately 6000 years after the creation of the planet, hence the Second Coming would occur around 500 CE – The Christian apologist Irenaeus as well as Hippolytus also held to 500 CE as the date of the return of Jesus Christ.
793 CE – The Spanish monk Beatus of Lieband prophesied the end of the world on Easter eve 793, causing the present crowd to panic. Everyone fasted throughout the night and were relieved to discover they were alive and well the next day.
848 CE – The prophetess Thiota believed 848 was the final year.
970 CE – Catharingian felt they had calculated the exact date of the end of the world, with Christ’s arrival set for Friday, March 25 970 – for coincidentally both the celebration of the Annunciation and Good Friday shared this very same date. Furthermore, they were confident that this day also marked Adam’s creation, Isaac’s sacrifice, the Red Sea’s parting, both Jesus’s conception and crucifixion. They figured how could the End of Days manage to miss such a well-established tradition?
992 CE – Bernard of Thuringia believed the consummation of all things would occur in the year 992.
1000 CE – Many Christians in late antiquity and during the early medieval period (including St Augustine) were sure that the year 1000 marked the end of the world. Panic gripped many in western Europe and some people even left their homes to wait for the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem.
1033 CE – When Jesus did not arrive a thousand years after the date of his “calculated” birth, various Christian mystics asserted that the end would occur a thousand years after his Crucifixion. The entire early eleventh century was a period of constant rumors that the end was near (as recorded by the Burgundian monk Radulfus Glaber).
1100 CE – Somehow the year 1100 became the next year believed to mark impending doom for all humanity.
1184 CE – Rather than Christ, 1184 was the date set for the arrival of the Antichrist.
1186 CE – john of Toledo foresaw the end of the world as encoded within the cosmos, noting that the planetary alignment occurring in Libra on September 23, 1186 would spell certain doom.
1200 CE – Once again, the end predicted based on the neatness of the numbers matched in hundreds. One of the advocated of this date was Italian mystic Joahim of Fiore (1135-1202), but he also added the end could happen as late as 1260.
1284 CE – It is recorded that Pope Innocent III expected the Second Coming to occur 666 years following the rise of Islam – and so calculated the year 1284.
1290 CE – Followers of Joachim of Fione decided their mystic really meant 1290 to mark the End.
1306 CE – Establishing the idea that the beginning of the Millennium began with the advent of Roman emperor Constantine’s reign in the year 306, Gerard of Poehide(in 1147) determined the release of Satan would occur about 1306.
1335 CE – Not willing to give up on their teacher’s calculations, the followers of Joachim of Fiore extended his predictions to 1335.
1366 CE – French ascetic, Jean de Roquetailiade determined the Milennium would start between 1368 and 1370, with the Antichrist’s arrival set for 1366.
1367 CE – Militz of Mromeriz, a Czech archdeacon, asserted the End would occur around 1367.
1378 CE – Once more, the followers of Joachim of Fiore (now called Joachites) cam up with yet another date – this was set by
Arnold of Vilanova, in his De Tempore Ativento Antichristia in his reinterpretation, the antichrist’s reign would begin in 1378.
1420 CE – The Taborites (directly related to the Hussites of Bohemia) predicted the finality of all things to occur in 1420 and calculated this event right down to the month, February. The main proponent of this belief was the Czech prophet Martinek Hausha.
1500 CE – Enamored by the mystique of the double zeros, 1500 became the next target date of the end.
1524 CE – According to certain English astrologers, the end of the world would begin in London on the first of February. The report is that 20,000 people fled their homes, expecting the first sign to be a giant flood. February 1st ended up being a relatively calm, rainless day. Because of the planetary alignment with Pisces, astrologer Johannes Stoeffler determined the End (again with a flood because Pisces was considered a water sign) would occur on Feruary 24th.
1532 CE – Aviennese bishop by the name of Frederick Nausea believed the end was near when he heard about crosses dripped in blood manifesting beside a comet.
1533 CE – During this period in general, a group called the Anabaptists began to predict the end of the world on various dates. The End occurring in the year 1533 was advanced by their prophet Melchior Hoffman, who thought Christ would first come to Strasbourg. According to his theology only 144,000 people would be saved, with everyone else burned by fire.
1534 CE – Another Anabaptist, Jan Matthys, calculated the End on Easter Day, April 5, 1534. Only those at Munster would survive the impending destruction.
1583 CE – At exactly noontime on April 28th 1583, with the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, Christ was supposed to come again, at least that’s what astrologer Richard Harvey thought.
1600 CE – It is recorded that Martin Luther believed the world would end before 1600.
1603 CE – Tomasso Campanella, a Dominican monk, had this hot notion that the sun would collide with the Earth this year.
1648 CE – A rabbi from Smyrna, Turkey, by the name of Sabbatai Zevi calculated using the Kabbalah that the Messiah would appear this year and that his Messiah was indeed him!
1666 CE – The Great Fire of London this year only encouraged Christians and Jews alike to believe the End was at hand; in a rare display of ecumenical apocaplyptism. Jews believed the Messiah was to appear and Christians expected the second coming of Christ. Christians simply figured that the first 1000 years represented the millennium and that if they added the number of the Beast, 666 to this number, they would reach the time of the Apocalypse.
1694 CE – The German prophet Johann Jacob Zimmerman believed Jesus would return this year in the New World, after intensive biblical as well as astrological studies. He gathered pilgrims to accompany him to America, known as the Woman of the Wilderness, but died before they could leave. Johannes Kelpius took Zimmerman’s place and led everyone to the Americas, but Jesus never appeared.
1697 CE – Famous witch hunter Cotton Mather believed the End out occur this year.
1733 CE – Long before, Sir Isaac Newton predicted the End for this year.
1736 CE – William Whiston of Cambridge said the Apocalypse would happen on October 13, 1736, destroying the Sodom of what was London of his day.
1757 CE – Emanuel Swedenborg in a mystical vision, was told 1757 was the big year!
1763 CE – George Bell, a follower of John Wesley, prophesied that this year marked the End.
1792 CE – The Shaker’s designated apocalyptic year.
1805 CE – Presbyterian minister Christopher Love, in the 17th century foresaw this as the final year.
1814 CE – Joanna Southcott, the 64 year old virgin prophetess, believed October 19th would mark the day of the re-birth of Christ and that she was chosen to hold the new baby Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus was to be born on Christmas Day. While she did look pregnant, she wasn’t and actually died of dropsy on Christmas Day.
1834 CE – First date set by William Miller for the End.
1836 CE – Second date set by William Miller.
1843 CE – Third date set by William Miller.
1844 CE – Fourth year set by Miller – and set for March 21st, but after no arrival, re-set for October 22nd.
1856 – The Crimean War was believed by many to be the Battle of Armageddon predicted in the book of Revelation.
1874 CE – Charles Taze Russell, founder of the group that eventually became the Witnesses of Jehovah, proclaimed that Christ had indeed returned this year – But spiritually speaking.
1881 CE – The End of the World according to some Jehovah Witnesses.
1891 CE - Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, estimated in 1825 that the Second Coming would occur in about 56 years which brings it to this year.
1896 CE – Michael Boxter, in his book, The End of This Age About the End of This Century, set the Rapture for this year, with 144,000 real Christians worth of this journey.
1900 CE – The Brothers and Sisters of the Red Death, a Russian cult, believed this year was the End of the World – specifically on November 13th. In this belief, over 100 committed suicide.
1908 CE – a grocery store owner in Pennsylvania y the name of Lee T. Spangler believed the fires of Hell would consume the earth this year.
1910 CE – Many believed Halley’s Comet was the sign of the End of the World. Some even claimed that the comet was poisonous and took “comet pills” to protect themselves.
1914 CE – Some Jehovah Witnesses saw World War I as the Battle of Armageddon.
1919 CE – Meteorologist Albert Porta believed the conjunction of six planets would trigger a magnetic tug that would destroy the earth on December 17, 1919.
1925 CE – The angel Gabriel appeared before Margaret Rowan and told her the world would end on Friday the Thirteenth.
Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, believed the Rapture was a scheduled to occur this year.
1939 CE – World War II was seen as the beginning of the End of the World.
1953 CE – Agnes Carlson, founder of the Canadian Sons of Light, predicted this year as the End.
1954 CE – Dorothy Martin, leader of the Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, predicted a giant flood would destroy the Earth on exactly December 21, 1954.
1959 CE – The Founder of the Davidians, Victor Houteff, believed the End was near, but after his death, his wife Frances established the date as April 22, 1959. Many gathered on Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas, but nothing happened.
1966 CE – The Nation of Islam believed sometime between 1965 and 1966, the apocalypse would happen destroying the United States.
1967 CE – According to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the Kingdom of Heaven was to be established this year.
1970 CE – In his book “The Late Great Earth”, Hal Lindsey said that the End of the World was taking place now.
1973 CE – The guru of the Children of God, David Berg, believed the United States would be destroyed by a comet this year.
1981 CE – Chuck Smith of Cavalry Chapel of TV fame predicted the world would end in this year.
1988 CE – In his book, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988”, Edgar Whisenam argued that Jesus would return on Rosh Hoshana, between September 11 and 13.
1989 CE – Since Jesus did not return in 1988, Whisenam revised his figures, because of a anomaly in the Gregorian calendar, to this year.
1990 CE – Whisenam next predicted this year as the End.
1991 CE – Whisenam tried again, predicting this year as the End.
1992 CE – In a fourth try, Whisenam predicted this year.
1993 CE – Figuring that the odds were with him, Whisenam predicted this year.
1994 CE – In his last try, Whisenam predicted this year and when this year came and went, quite trying….His book sales had tanked by then!
Heaven’s Gate has not been mentioned. Along with several other recent cults and predictions, but this will show you why non-Christians take Christian worries and predictions of the End with a grain of salt and a sarcastic laugh! Incidentally for those worrying about 2012, the Mayan’s did not predicate the End of the World.
- 29
-
- 17
entries - 32
comments - 27650
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Putin. Yeah that one.
So. I’ve been called a „Putin apologist“ lately, by certain people in here. You know who you are, I will not mention any names.
Let’s get some things clear here about my views on Putin and „the West“. Just as a short PSA, so that you at least can bash me for what I really think mmmmkay?
„Putin is an autocrat / dictator / (insert your preferred label here)!!!“
Yes he certainly isn’t a leader who supports democracy and human rights to their fullest. Not at all. I have not denied that, and I do not deny that now either. However… is that any different in „the West“? Oh yes, the repression system isn’t as drastic and in-your-face here – generally – as it is in Russia. But look your own mirror image in the eye and try to honestly tell yourself that it’s any different in our respective countries, if you really have plans that would change the system. We’re not in danger of falling victim to a Strange Accident™ normally, but when was the last time you have seen anyone promoting real change not getting fought tooth and nail by the ruling system, across all official party divides, including all the major media? Sure, normally such parties/candidates are just not talked about by the journaille, or if they are, then they are badmouthed as much as possible. But is that any different in outcome? We’re allowed to disagree on minor issues, but never on the core issues, namely the rule of the 1 %.
Also, totalitarian or not, he is an officially elected leader. If we’re not happy with that, that’s our right. But if we want to change that, does anyone think that saber-rattling will do the job? Ever checked how much public support Putin enjoys from the Russian people? You let the tanks and bombers roll into position, you only reinforce the impression that the average Russian has of The West.
„Putin annexed Crimea!“
Did he?
Annexion, last I checked, was defined as violent takeover of a region that does not agree to you marching in.
Crimea had declared itself independent of Ukraine and invited Russia. We can certainly argue whether that declaration of independence was or was not engineered by Russia, but that’s a different question. Calling the Crimea thing an annexion is, flatly, a lie.
Oh right, why would anyone want to leave Ukraine after what happened a few years ago? Well even western media with their obvious bias didn’t stay silent about the new regime having recruited far-right groups to support itself very fast.
When was the last time you agreed with anyone calling bona fide nazis a group of good people?
This here has become infamous over here, a screenshot from our state-owned "quality" TV. It shows one member of what the TV station called "Ukrainian freedom fighters against the Russian threat". You may notice a certain thing in that image. When called on it, the TV station said "sorry our fault"... then promptly did it again. Several times.
Besides, that the West started meddling in Ukraine at all leads to the following point.
„Putin is a dangerous aggressor!!!“
Is he?
How many countries did Russia conquer and/or wreck since Putin got into office?
Let’s look at the West during the same time mmmkay? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria… these are just the ones that occur to me spontaneously. Yeah some of you will now mention Russia’s involvement in Syria. Folks, Assad officially invited Russian forces to his country. According to international law that makes the Russian forces the only foreign military that’s allowed to be there. We can certainly argue whether or not Assad is a good leader or not, but see above, he also is an officially elected leader. If we want to work to change that, fine, but we’ll have to do it in accordance with international law. Hint: Sponsoring rebel groups or bombing anyone or anything in that country is not in accordance with the law.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
For most of the world, yes there is a global superpower throwing its weight around and acting like it’s allowed to do anything according to „might makes right“. I point you again to the list of aggressive acts I provided above. Doesn’t look like that’s Russia does it?
„Putin was boss of the KGB! Of course he’s an evil asshole!!!“
He was KGB officer from 1975 to 1982. After Glasnost became a thing under Gorbachev he had a nice number of other functions, being a bona fide mayor for example. He only returned to intelligence work, kind of, as boss of Russia’s internal intelligence (the FSB) from July 1998 to August 1999. For those who don’t want to bother looking it up, that was under Yeltsin, with whom the West was always a-ok. Funny how no one ever even mentions all the other points Putin has been at during his career. That is, funny unless you look at propaganda values.
„Putin’s a threat!!!“
To whom?
Ever looked at Russia’s current military spending? Or do you remember the far-beyond-desolate state the Russian army found itself in after the collapse of the Soviet regime?
Did you know that Putin recently announced that Russia would decrease military spending soon?
Putin’s Russia is only a military threat to those who can’t call upon NATO or other powerful allies. And that assumes that he’s planning an aggression. If Trump gets his wish and all NATO members increase their military spending, Germany alone will invest as much into new war toys per year as all of Russia. Now add to that the other NATO members, and the US with their obscene military budget. Who’s the threat here?
By the way, after the collapse of the Soviets, a certain US official had assured Gorbachev that NATO would, literally, advance „not a single inch“ eastwards. Now look at the map and wonder how trustworthy NATO looks to the average Russian. Just sayin‘.
Yeah sure, Russia still has nukes. And if you assume that Putin is a card-carrying moron that’s certainly an option to him. Only a moron would launche those missiles knowing that his own country would end only minutes later too.
Russia may well be a threat to certain individuals, see the Skripal case if the evidence is good (I have objected to UK’s May blaming Putin because I’ve yet to hear any strong evidence besides her „I said so!“). In such cases, of course that criminal act has to be dealt with. We have to do it right though, the proper way. Unless we no longer want to claim that we’re the Good Ones™.
By the way, don't point at secret services as source of "evidence". Remember those WMDs in Iraq, which were supposedly such a threat even though no one ever found a trace of them? Or Tonkin? Northwoods? GLADIO? All that came from secret services and the like. Guess how much I trust them.
And while we’re at it, yes those who spit on democracy and human right should be dealt with. However, looking at how the Western nations have acted in recent times, they definitely have no right to act as judge. You know who should hold court over that? The United fucking Nations. That’s what we have them for.
But strangely, no one, not even the most „but we’re the good virtuous ones!!!“ Western nations, considers them much. Wonder why…
(EDIT: Aaaaand I'll just leave this link here.
"The best the MSM have come up with is that a St. Petersburg outfit called Internet Research Agency (IRA) placed $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to the $81 million Facebook ad spending by the Trump and Clinton campaigns), some of the Russian ads actually directed against Trump. As Jeffrey St. Clair pointed out in the pages of CounterPunch, in the key states where Clinton lost the election, the traditional Democrat strongholds of Michigan ($832 spent on token IRA buy ads), Pennsylvania ($300), and Wisconsin ($1,979), all but $54 of this amount was spent before the party primaries even started.
Facebook’s vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the total Russian ad buys occurred after the presidential election."
" Even if there were genuine evidence that Russian officials had hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta emails, as originally claimed by the intelligence agencies, one should put this in context of the long history of the CIA’s efforts to overthrow many democratically elected leaders who had the temerity to stand up to the superpower. These would include Allende, Arbenz, Mossadeq, Lumumba, Chavez, Goulart, Ortega, and others. The list of US interventions in foreign elections just since 1948 (Italy) is voluminous. ")
- 17
-
Latest Entry
Marilyn Adamson....ex-atheist retard!
Hey Guys...I wrote this a while ago, thought I'd share it.
I read it again and realise that I could do better. Maybe I will later...seems kinda pointless though.
Refutation to Marilyn Adamson’s
Is there a God?http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
If you look here, you will see the inane ramblings of a supposed ex-atheist woman named Marilyn Adamson. She posits 6 reasons why we should believe in God, not just a God, but the Christian God. So, I wrote an essay refuting her points.Marilyn Adamson’s article from EveryStudent.com on the argument for the existence of a God is interesting at best, and extremely misinformed at worst. Her arguments are as follows:1. Most cultures believing in God2. Irreducible complexity (Intelligent Design)3. Argument from probability4. Inherent sense of right and wrong5. God revealed in nature, and the bible6. Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.These arguments are the core of Adamson’s argument, and from that, she attempts to give credibility not to “a” God, but to her bias for the Christian God. While “a” god in any form can be defined as anything and therefore never can be proved or disproved, defining this God as the Christian God allows me to further refute her arguments.
Refutation of Argument 1:
Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God. Adamson uses this argument to show that because the majority of people believe in a God, and have believed in a God, it must lend credibility to there being the Christian God. First of all, each culture who had the early religions, such as the Sumerians, Chinese, Indian, and Native American peoples, all have very different religions. From these religions, as cultures diverge into differing cultures, stems other religions, and so on, much like the denominations of Christianity. These early cultures were extremely primitive in thinking, believing that lightening and earthquakes were caused by God. Crops failing and crops flourishing, natural disasters of all kinds were attributed to this God. Not one of these cultures had the same ideas as to what this God was like. Furthermore, polytheism was inherent in many cultures such as Sumerian myth, Greek myth, among others. These Gods took on roles of different aspects of human personality, and different aspects of nature. Using this as an argument for the existence of God, would be adding credibility to all of the religions, which would not bode well for Christianity, nor does it offer support to the existence of the Christian God.
Refutation of Argument 2: The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Adamson, in her infinite ignorance, attempts to show that the apparent design found on our planet offers compelling existence for a God. More specifically, the Christian God. She explains that the Earth is the right size and shape for life. That if it were any further from the sun, or with a different combination of gases, that life would be impossible. This is a rather humorous argument, as it equates to an analogy made by Douglas Adams about a puddle of water: “Oh look at this hole I’ve found, I fit so perfectly into it that it must have been made for me!”. If you don’t’ understand this, the water thinks that the hole it has found is perfectly designed for it, because the water fits right into the hole, not thinking that the water itself conforms to the conditions the hole has. The only life we have seen, has been life on Earth, that does not mean that life can only exist in the way we see it on Earth. If conditions were different on Earth, it’s possible that life would have come about differently.Next, she uses the argument that the human brain is too complicated to have “come about by chance”. This stems from the belief that a) Evolution is goal oriented and that Evolution operates on chance. Through observation and other aspects of the Scientific Method, we know that there are rudimentary brains from which ours have evolved from. The ability to reason and function can be seen in related species such as Chimpanzees, and Gorillas among the Great Ape family. Our brain is no more or less special than any other organisms abilities. The ability to communicate and reason is nothing new among animals.
Refutation of Argument 3: Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation of creation.
Adamson uses this argument to show that natural processes can not explain the complexity of our universe. She gives us an analogy about looking at Mt. Rushmore, and seeing the faces, and knowing that they must have been created. This is much like the idea that if one is walking in a forest, and finds a watch, the person deduces that the watch must have been created, and could not have come about naturally. This idea is fallacious, as we know that watches do not come about naturally, and have never seen a watch come about naturally. We can observe mountains forming through plate tectonics. We can observe the trees forming, and dirt being made. We can observe these processes happening naturally, without a God being right there all the time, creating every tree, and every human. Adamson also points to Sir Frederick Hoyle, who “showed” how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. I’d like to point out that Hoyle was an astronomer, and not, a biologist. His credentials equate to an english teacher trying to disprove complex mathematics. Anyways, I will get into specifics about Hoyles argument. Hoyle tries to show that life is statistically improbable. He wrote about it in his book “Evolution From Space”. He says that the statistic of life coming about naturally is 10^40,000 (p.24). Specifically, he states that a 20 amino acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Hoyle leaves this out, but there is a minimum specificity of this one specific possibility. That is 10^20. Hoyle mentions it by saying "by itself, this small probability could be faced" Even though it doesn't account that any number of the first organisms could be a possibility in having enzymes come together. He then states that the problem is there are 2000 enzymes. And therefore the chance of obtaining them is (10^20)*2000=10^40,000There are three flaws in Hoyles conclusion:1)Natural Selection is random.2)That all 2000 enzymes had to be hit upon all at once.3)That life began with complex enzymes working together.In answer to these flaws, natural selection is not random, but selective. It does not operate on chance, but on selecting what works from what doesn’t. What works moves on what doesn’t, doesn’t. Organisms do not use all 2000 enzymes, different organisms use different enzymes to function. Biologists all agree that life before is not as complex as it is now, therefore even if organisms today used all 2000 enzymes, it is not logical to believe they did in the past. Furthermore, calculating statistical probability on past events is a rather dangerous thing to do, as you cannot possibly account for all the factors that are involved in calculating the probability, one could come up with any astronomical answer, that doesn’t make it true.I would also like to add that current studies in science have shown that amino acids can come together “randomly” to form protocells, the studies have been done, and repeated:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htmht...el_sci/fox.html
Refutation of Argument 4: Humankinds inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
Adamson argues that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and that these must have come from God. I would like to point out that children in their formative years, do not have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Where do they learn that stealing is bad? Where do they learn that calling names is bad, or that hitting is bad?? They learn these things from their parents. Before a child can properly function in society, it has to learn how to function in society. Humans are not born with the knowledge of how to function in society, or there would be no need for laws. The Bible itself has a bunch of rules and regulations (ie the 10 Commandments), if we are inherently born with this sense of right and wrong, then why is there the need for these laws, and commandments? I wonder….I would also like to add that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong.
Refutation of Argument 5: God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
Well, first I’d like to add that God has not revealed himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life. If he has, then everyone would all believe the same thing, which we don’t. Adamson uses an odd example showing that archaeological findings confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Such as confirming the existence of King David, the supposed author of many of the Psalms. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and other unnamed historical findings. Confirming the existence of King David offers nothing to the credibility of the Bible’s other stories, no more than the confirmation of finding the remains of the City of Troy confirms that Achilles really existed. It’s just another piece in the puzzle of history. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not offer credibility to the Bible arguments. These are not secular sources that confirm things in the Bible, rather they are actual books of the Bible, that show that scribes copying the books weren’t as meticulous as previously thought. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have found stories changed, added to, and rearranged from our other manuscripts found and dated about about 800 AD.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...html
Furthermore, Adamson tells us that the Bible was written over a 1500 year span, by (allegedly) 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, in 3 different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history. And yet she says there is consistency in this?? I’m surprised Adamson claims she has read the Bible, and there is consistency! We find contradictions in stories, numerical errors in dates, false information, translation errors. Not only that, but even the personality of God is conflicting in the Bible. He ranges from loving and forgiving, to hateful and death oriented, killing anyone and everyone.
Refutation of Argument 6: Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
I would like to point out that claiming that your religion is unique because Jesus says this, or does this, is nothing new. Each religion has their own unique little quirks that no other religion has. This does not add credibility to your argument, nor does it discredit your argument. It’s a moot point.Adamson claims Jesus was divine because he did things that people can’t do. Performing miracles. I’d like to ask if she’s ever seen Jesus perform any miracles. If she can show us where Jesus is performing miracles right now that were discussed in the bible. And if these miracles can be repeated, tested, and verified to be true. If any claims of Jesus performing miracles can be shown to me, I will sell one of my kidneys on the black market. But wait a second…isn’t Jesus not on Earth? Well, if he isn’t, then I guess she can’t prove that Jesus did perform miracles. The Gospels were written by men, at the earliest 30 years after Jesus died, at the latest, 100 years after he died, by people who did not know him, and who, by many accounts, do not agree with each other on what he did, and how he did them. So, I would like to ask, why do you believe this book that claims Jesus did miracles. When there is no outside reference to Jesus doing miracles. There is more veracity that Bigfoot exists (which he does not), than there is that Jesus even existed, let alone performed miracles. Adamson also tries to pull at my heartstrings by portraying God as gentle, loving, and aware of our self-centerdness and shortcomings. She states that we are all sinners, worthy of punishment. God is not gentle. A God who willingly slaughters, and orders the slaughter, of men women and children, is not gentle, or loving. A God who destroys the entire Earth and everything on it, is not gentle, or loving. A God who claims to be wrathful! Who admits to creating evil!! (Isaiah 45:7) is not gentle and loving. How is this loving? As to humans deserving punishment, if God is all-knowing, and all-powerful (and created evil), and God is the creator of everything, then God knowingly created us to sin. We are destined to do his will, and to follow his grand Plan for the Universe. If this is true, then we are no more deserving of punishment than the chair I’m sitting on. This also negates free will and choice. If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, and he created everything, then we do not choose our path, he chose it for us. Anyways, Adamson also uses the tear-jerking story of Jesus’ crucifixion to compel her listeners to bow down and repent. I would like to acknowledge that if Jesus is God in the flesh, then God sacrificing himself (an all-powerful, all-knowing being), to a few hours of pain, isn’t exactly much of a sacrifice. Jesus may have died, but he was resurrected, and currently resides in Heaven. Where is the sacrifice? Did Jesus stay dead?? No.She also offers that Jesus’ resurrection is the most conclusive proof of Jesus’ divinity. Once again, I’m amazed that Adamson can claim to have read the Bible, and the Gospel accounts. On the points of Jesus Resurrection, all four books have something different to say. These accounts are so differing, as to render the veracity of the Resurrection to nothing more than a story. She melds the four accounts into one, without offering the different details, and states that over years of legal, historical, and logical analysis concludes that Jesus rose from the dead. Well…I’m going to let you analyze the four stories yourselves. But let me ask you some questions. Who arrived at the tomb? Who was there at the tomb at the time the people arrived? Who was told about the body being gone? What was Jesus’ lineage? How did Judas die? How was the field that Judas was buried in named?These are among the many strange contradictions in a supposed 100% infallible inerrant Word of God. Thank you for taking the time to read this refutation.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
- 23
entries - 31
comments - 25995
views
Recent Entries
I love to read and learn.
I have read a library full of books and delved into great thoughts with reckless abandon. That is until I became a christian.
After I "gave my life to Jesus", since I "was no longer my own" but I was "bought with a price", I didn't have the right to run my life and think great thoughts and follow great thinkers...
I had to follow Jesus...that was it.
I am NO LONGER a christian. I have seen myself, accepted my beliefs and have lived as an EX christian for almost two years. I really have never taken a fighting stance that I needed to protect, preserve and perpetuate my decisions. The reasons for this blog is to allow myself to continue to think through all the areas of my life, my experiences and the beliefs that brought them to me and share them with you, others how are seeking the ability to see life as it truly is...to think critically and logically and love deeply and passionately.
When I had become a christian, I gave up "childish things"...like thinking. No really, that is the mainstream christian undercurrent of thought. Once you become a christian, "God" does the thinking for you. If something happens in your life, it was "meant to happen" to allow God to show his grace upon you or to teach you a much needed lesson because you have allowed pride and self-centeredness to rule your life and relationships. A logical thought, not supported by scripture, was not only not expected but not welcome in christian circles. There was no asking of "why" I would believe this or that but that I "should not believe it" because it was "not scriptural"...In abuse circles, we call this "circular reasoning". The "Bible" was inerrant and was a "plum line" for all truth. If any statement contradicted it in any way, then the statement was false. Period. So much for thinking.
As much as it may seem impossible, I am not bitter about my life and being kept in the dark while being a christian. I understand that those who live that life, as I had done, live it with possibly the same fervor and conviction that I had. I was "saved and sanctified". Funny thing is...I am STILL saved and sanctified. If you believe in the "once saved always saved" then I have not "lost my salvation" but "coming to the truth"...but indeed I have FOUND my salvation IN the truth. The truth has truly "set me free" from the "power of sin and death".
As with many christians, I had also sought quick answers to life's problems. The meaning and purpose of life was made certain by believing and following the christian doctrine. It was a nicely wrapped package complete with a cute little bow on top. I had everything that I thought I needed for a life "of godliness" but again, ironically, I STILL have a deep rooted understanding of "the meaning of life" and my purpose in it. Maybe even greater than I had while I was a christian. It was not such a quick fix for me as an ex-christian but it was my journey. It is my life. And I am not looking for anyone else to give me meaning or purpose but seeking to live honestly, whole-heartedly and "thoughtfully".
If you are in the process of deconversion or may have questions regarding why you are reading this blog, please leave a comment for me. I would love to converse with you and share even more of the things that I have learned about myself, life and how I became an ex-christian.
This is a "learning blog"...a tool of self-discovery and life enhancement. My life did not begin when I became a christian, my life began when I realized that religion was no "quick fix" and I challenged myself to think for myself. You can too.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 23
-
Latest Entry
Diary Of A Food Addict: Renewal
Can't believe it has been over a year ago since I posted on this blog last.
SHAME ON ME!
Well, no, not really. I've actually made a lot of progress over the last 13 months, and made some permanent life style changes that I stuck with, and don't miss at all. As I am sure most of you remember, and if you don't just check out the gallery, I used to look like this.
Yeah, I was rockin' the scale at nearly 220 lbs (99.8 kg)..... Now, within about 4 months, I'd plateaued out, reaching 188lbs (85.3 kg). Looking like this.
And then I fell off the face of the planet, letting everything get in the way of me taking care of me. And I put the weight right back on.....
A lot has changed since May of 2014. For one, I am single now, and eliminated the number one cause of my stress eating. I also have been working a very physically demanding job that requires a lot of squatting, stomach crunching, lifting...all day long. I also changed my dietary habits to be a bit more Mediterranean, and have cut out red meat for the most part. I am nearly 100% red meat free, and will probably completely commit by this time next month as my body throws a fit when I do have a burger or steak once a week. I no longer crave beef at all. Chicken rarely so. Fish has been my absolute friend and companion, along with pork here and there.
But what about my number one go to friend in my fridge?
No, have not been able to give it up. I've come to realize I have a corn syrup addiction and that is why after cleaning my system of caffeine, I still felt like utter dog shit. So, I will continue for now, my soda consumption, though I do only have for part of the day now, instead of all day long. Coffee has become a favorite habit in the morning instead of fizzy sugar. Here's hoping I find a truly workable solution for corn syrup addiction!
It seems that I have found a good combination of exercise, diet, and alleviated a major stress situation. And since getting my own place back in October of this past year? Results have been good. Here is what I look like now.
I've gone from 220 lbs to 170 lbs (77 kg). I quite literally have been putting off going through my clothing the past few months because I just couldn't accept that I had actually made the change over, but I did this week. 85% of my wardrobe (including underwear dammit) is gone now, being too loose to fit. I even tried keeping a few pair of my size 16 waist jeans to use in conjunction with heavy thermals (I work outdoors). Still too loose. What I found really impressive is that I didn't just cut wait, I've built muscle. My arms are somewhat more toned, and I can feel the layer of muscle under my still semi poochy gut. I am at a point I know I can start toning and actually see the result, not just wonder where under the fluffy white marshmallow surface of my body I have definition.
Now to decide what to work on. The fat on my hips and abdomen has shrunk dramatically, but it's still fluffy stuff that looks horribly uneven now that I've dropped weight. I don't want to be all svelte and cut, I mean, I've had four kids and split my abdominal more than once. But a bit more less flumpy around the edges would be nice, right? This is going to be tough. How do you bust fat that is on a part of your body that has no muscle to work? All I can think is cardio.
UGHHHHHHH.......
Yeah, I still haven't dealt with my aversion to it.
-
- 4
entries - 4
comments - 25600
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The Kingdom Of God And The Law Of Love
The Kingdom of God and the Law of Love
Was Jesus really a true character of history and if so, were the claims about him as the son of god or The God, true? The answer still comes up as a 'no.' He could be real or not, and the argument is still 'no, he is not who he claimed to be.' The NT was written to legitimize the Christian church's doctrine as much as the OT was written to legitimize the priest class over the Jew that did not exist until then. There were no Jews in history until they gathered together after the return from Babylon. The books of the OT were fraudulently written and were claimed as such by the OT prophet Jeremiah who recognized the Law of Moses was a pack of lies written by scribes to give credibility to the Law over the Jew.
(Jer 7:8) Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do any good.
Jer 8:8 How do you say, We are wise, and the Law of Jehovah is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has written falsely.
Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...But they did not listen, they paid no heed, but went ahead with their own plans with the most stubbornly wicked and evil hearts...Speak to them but they will refuse to listen to you. Call to them but they will refuse to answer... truth has perished from their lips and it is no longer heard in the land. (Jeremiah7:21)
Jeremiah denounced the law in a manner that would not get him killed by the Jews for blasphemy.
The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps. --Proverbs 14:15
In the NT we find where someone wrote:
But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (Tit 3:9)
How is it possible to to preach the Law and it be unprofitable and vain unless it were not true?
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
True religion shows there is no sin because of love, mercy, and forgiveness (Hosea 6:6). True religion is acceptable to everyone because it shows those with this religion practice love and mercy.
How can religion be pure if it only involves caring for others and showing them love and compassion, mercy and forgiveness? Because the law delivered to Moses is not true. Because the law was not given to Moses then there is only one thing that is true and that is love against which there are no Laws and love hurts no one. Where love reigns there is then forgiveness and with forgiveness there is no arguments of the Law because when a person is forgiven a crime, there is no conviction and there is no judgment. That is how love conquers all things and covers a multitude of sins. Jesus is not needed for salvation because with love, mercy, and forgiveness that the gentiles show without the Law, it demonstrates the law has no affect beyond the confines of the Law of the Jew, not the gentile. Gentiles are a law unto themselves because they show the law is a natural occurrence of the heart. The Jew thought the law was required of all men. The gentile proved they already understood what love, mercy and compassion was all about and they never received it from anyone. How is that possible unless the law the Jew received was a lie written by scribes to subject the Jew to the will of the priests and Pharisees. Paul, supposedly wrote thousands of pages of words describing how the law works in a christians's life and what did Jesus himself say about the Pharisee and scribes? Paraphrasing, he said, according to your own bible, he said that unless a man' righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisee he will not enter heaven. How is that possible without Jesus? You don't need Jesus because we already know that forgiveness covers sin, no sin equals no crime and no crime equals no judgment. This found in Romans Chapter Two. Jesus' gospel was not to the gentile, he said so himself. He even referred to gentiles as 'dogs.' Jesus' gospel was to the Jew to shame them into leaving the Law and pursuing common sense through acts of kindness towards one another coming from love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. This is the gospel of the Kingdom of God. It is found where? Within you. How? Through unfeigned love of others. The writers of the NT wander from one extreme to the other and once they focus on Paul every writing is made in reference to what Paul teaches. You either follow the gospel of Jesus or you follow Paul and Paul wrote of all kinds of things he believed were necessary for salvation and unless you are holier than Paul, a Pharisee, you will not be saved. In the first part of Jesus' ministry he claimed he did not come speaking of himself but the kingdom of god. Then the writings take a different course and all one reads about is Jesus speaking of himself and the unbelievable miracles right out of the pages of the other religions before and after the period of Jesus. That is what makes Jesus unbelievable and his ministry is not known because the gospel he brought is mired in lies and deceits and the workings of the false apostle Paul. What do we know about Jesus beyond church tradition? Not one thing!
Mat 15:8-9 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. (9) But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
What are the commandments of men? The ten commandments. To worship god in vain is to preach the ten commandments because in doing so, one teaches the traditions of men that become law over time, not the commandments of god. God never gave any commandments to Moses. The commandments were lies written by the scribes which Jeremiah confessed. This continues to the writings of the NT. Tradition is preached, not gospel. The gospel has no affect because of the traditions of the church. There is no Holy Ghost because everyone has their own idea of Jesus and the church. Otherwise there would only be one body of believers worshiping god in the same way and instead there are hundreds of denominations and thousands of variations of these denominations and all of them preach PAUL not Jesus. Jesus did not live, he is a figment of the christian imagination. And, if he lived, his gospel is so written over and fragmented by the mindless drivel of Paul that anything that jesus brought is fictional because it cannot be separated from the nonsense of Paul.
The only theme throughout the OT and NT that is repeated over and over is what? God demands mercy and not sacrifice. God demands love that covers up sin and not the insane ramblings of the Law that points fingers at everyone and accuses everyone for no reason. Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do you any good! God demands mercy and not sacrifice because that is the only works not covered by the Law that Moses never got from god. Even the prophets knew God never told moses anything but how were they going to tell the Jew without being killed by the Jews?
The Law of love was not delivered to Moses so Jesus brought it. That is what the Kingdom of God is within you. Mercy and not sacrifice, and an accusation that traditions were taught as law, as commandments, when there were none given. To prove Jesus lived is impossible. To prove we need Jesus for salvation is impossible because you cannot prove he was sent by god to save us from what a talking snake did. Too many myths and not enough factual accounts. Every time we forgive each other we save each other because where forgiveness abounds there is no strife, no anger, no hate, no feelings of guilt. We don't need Jesus. We need common sense and the willingness to forgive.
This is the Kingdom of God, showing unfeigned love to one another and the forgiveness of each other's 'sins' or wrongful deeds they may commit against us. That is the Law of Love and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is without sin. How? By forgiveness of sin. We forgive each other, that law is within our hearts. Where forgiveness reigns, so does the Kingdom of God.
- 4
-
- 10
entries - 43
comments - 23464
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Use Your Brains, People!
As a recent ex-christian (6 months sober), I am still waking up to the utter lunacy of the majority of our population. Even as a True Believer, when I saw things like this I was able to call bullshit. I would get aggravated by believers who seemed to check their brains at the door, and felt like they made the rest of us look bad. I feel like a self-righteous ass to admit that. But if you were to get them to admit it – there are many Christians who feel that way. Even though I kept more of my common sense intact than many other believers, I was still much more in the dark than I realized. I didn’t recognize the tremendous scope of absolute idiocy that resides in the majority of this country that I love so dearly. Now, don’t get me wrong. I believed in my share of poppycock! I bought into god’s supernatural intervention, I just tried to balance it with some sense of reason…which eventually led to the undoing of my faith.
What is so shocking to me now is the stuff I chose not to pay attention to. I chose to see my brothers and sisters in the faith as people who were good, god-loving and who would eventually “change the world”. Even though many of my fellow Christians may have been of a different religious stripe, I considered that we were all unified because of our belief in Christ. So when believers did bat-shit crazy things, I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, it was “us” against the world.
Now that I’ve moved over to the “dark side”, I am able to more fully grasp the deficit of critical thinking skills that resides among believers. I must admit that as I sat and read through the comments on the above photo this morning, I was shocked. It’s not that I haven’t seen this sort of ignorance before among Christians. I guess it just sank in to a new level for me. Maybe for the first time I really let myself see these people as completely separate from me. I allowed myself to scorn them and their ignorance. I am just now getting to a point where I truly see this vast chasm between myself and my former Christian family.
I must admit that in a strange way this saddens me a little. I realize that I will never again be a part of that greater family. But that sadness is quickly followed by a sense of relief. I no longer have to check my brain at the door. I no longer have to feel like the odd person in the room and the only one asking questions and thinking rationally about things. And I’ve realized that leaving my faith doesn’t mean I have to be alone. I’ve discovered a whole world full of amazing people…people I never would have considered “friend material” as a Christian. I’m now part of a group of beautiful, loving, accepting heathens!
So, without further ado, here is the epic Facebook thread that pushed me over the edge this morning...
The caption for the photo above was "Click share if you see the angel and Jesus!". It originated from the "I Love Jesus" FB page (which you should never visit unless you want an ulcer!). This photo had over 1700 comments. The majority of them were people who seemed to ACTUALLY believe that someone ACTUALLY caught Jesus and an angel at the scene of this accident. Of course my first thoughts were the logical arguments, such as “If Jesus was there, why were these people in a near-fatal crash?”, and “If Jesus was there why did the EMT’s need to help the victims? Weren’t they instantly healed by Jesus?”
Nope. No one seemed to have the balls to ask those questions (or maybe the page administrator deleted such comments). As I read through them, I was amazed and appalled by the fact that most of the commenters didn’t show compassion for the injured people in the photo. Also, I did not see even ONE comment by someone thanking the EMT’s who were there (in real life!) to rescue the victims. And, surprisingly, most of them didn’t mention the very obvious ass-crack in the photo. No, they were all too busy giving praise to god for…um….letting these poor people get seriously injured or possibly killed?
Here’s a sampling of the comments…
The True BelieversTM:
"aye he goin to heaven now thats cray and scary!!" (WTF?!)
"amazing grace!"
"just what I needed!"
"wow! amazing!"
" One day, we will all have to give an answer to our maker. Amazing picture, thanks for sharing!
” (Sure, why not take this opportunity to proselytize?)"breathetaking!" (Why can't these people spell?!)
"gave me goosebumps!"
"they are always there when you need them!"
"why can't we just believe" (In response to those calling "photoshop")
"he's always there and loves when you talk to him"
"please send to my phone or fb wall" (Apparently this person does not understand how to share or send a photo. Shocking.)
"Beleving &Haveing faith" (Again with the spelling!)
"an ever present help in danger" (HOW is helping these victims?)
"amen. guess john sullivan does not know jesus" (John Sullivan commented with "nice photoshop", so I guess he deserves to go to hell?)
"padre eterno que tu anjel cuide mis hijos no nos desanpares telo pido con toda la fe dios mio." (No idea what this says, but I'm sure it's really stupid.)
"WOW! MAKES YOU BELIEVE" (No, it makes me ill.)
"De Javu" (Because you were once at the scene of a horrific accident accompanied by Jesus and an angel? Do you even know what déjà vu means? If so, maybe you could learn to spell it.)
As I skimmed through the comments I found a few made by people who may still have their brains intact. Only a small percentage of the 1700 seemed to understand this photo did not actually depict Jesus and an angel. This seriously makes me afraid for this country!
The Brave Naysayers:
"plumber's crack!" (This guy was one of only a few who caught that.)
"you people are retarted" (of course they misspelled retarted!)
"it's photoshop my friends"
"potato!" (LOL!)
"good graphic"
"you people are freaks" (Ahhh so refreshing.)
"amen to shitty photoshop!"
"photoshop and butt crack"
"hail satan" (This made me laugh! It actually got 11 likes!)
"science!" (LOVE this one.)
"So sad...
" (This was the ONLY comment I saw where someone seemed to actually understand what was really happening in this photo.)"awwwwwwwwwwwww im sorry that happed amen" (Well, this guy almost got it.)
And my comment:
“Maybe instead of ignorantly praising god for this photoshopped pic, you guys could ask yourselves why he would allow these poor people to get critically injured? Don’t you think if Jesus and an angel were ACTUALLY there that they would have prevented this horrible accident, or at least instantly healed the victims? How about instead you actually thank the EMT’s for being there to rescue the victims and SAVE THEIR LIVES? The EMT’s are the only people in this photo who should be praised. Use your brains, people!”
(SOMEONE had to be a voice of reason!)
So, there you have it. I feel like I need a shower to wash off the stupid.
- 10
-
- 16
entries - 2
comments - 20871
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
World Religion- A Few Basics
A few notes from Huston Smith's lecture Religions of the World:
The world's religions divide themselves into 4 groups or families-
The Western family or Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam
South Asain- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism.
East Asian: Taoism, Confuciansim, East Asian Buddhism, Shinto
Primal (or tribal or oral) religions: no writing or sacred texts.
How religions view time-
Western: time is linear.
Asian: time is cyclical.
Primal: time is eternal or timeless.
What religions emphasize:
South Asian religions concentrate on the psychological question.
East Asian religions concentrate on the social problem.
Chinese religion compared to Western exclusivity:
"Let me mention a third point that illustrates the Chinese social emphasis. And this has to do with the way they fitted their religions together. If we think of our major religions in the west- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- they are all exclusive of one another. If we were going to diagram them, why we might think of Judaism as a square, Christianity a circle, and Islam as a triangle. Well, you can put these together so they touch one another but they don't integrate. Whereas traditions in China- Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism as they imported it- fit together very differently. They fit together more like a jigsaw [puzzle] so they really do fit together. Traditionally every Chinese was a Confucianist, a Taoist, and a Buddhist at the same time... There was no conflict because on state occasions... everybody was a Confucianist. When disease fell they would turn to the Taoists... And then when death comes, that's the time for the Buddhist priest."
Judaism's underdog beginnings:
"...the Western idea of progress as having derived from the Jews who in their formative period were underdogs. As I say, neither of the other two families of religions had their formative outlook forged by underdogs. In the case of India, the outlook was forged by Brahmans who were at the top of the social heap. And in China it was the literati- those who could read- and the scholars who likewise were at the top of the social heap. ... If one is a member of the ruling class ...then there is no great urge to look to the future because things are already rather satisfactory... But with the Jews, as I mentioned, it was quite otherwise. They were always in a state of expectation, one of the symbols being they wanted to cross over into Jordan. ... It was this expectation of a better future, which as I say in Jewish theology crystalized in the doctrine of Messianism - the coming of a Messiah."
Primal religion and porous divisions:
"What distinguishes Primal religion is the absence of sharp divisions within the world and their experience of it. It is as if the lines that divide one thing from another... are perforated. They are not so severe, so sharp in dividing as we tend to make them...." For example, "the dividing line between the human and the rest of nature is perforated... humans can turn into animals and vice versa."
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 16
-
- 16
entries - 11
comments - 20868
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
So Much For Summer
Hey guys -
Have I told you all lately how much I appreciate you? I don't blog here enough, although I think about you daily. This is the only place I can come and say what I'm feeling - not only about religion, but about anything - because no one here 'knows' me. ;-) I mean, you all know me as an internet friend, but you aren't blood-related, a face-to-face friend, or park visitor, or a team mate at work. Since I've been working, now everyone I know there is my friend on Facebook. So I have to check myself. I can't bitch and moan about annoyances when my supervisor and team mates are all reading it.
Not that there's a lot to bitch and moan about, but, you know.... there's crap everywhere and we all make it and step in it... so there's always something.
Mostly, I love my job. The job itself. I enjoy talking to the visitors, showing them what's special about our park, talking about wildlife, telling them about fungi and flowers and birds and bugs. But there are downsides, too. Like a lack of leadership or mentoring on my supervisor's part. So... it sucks, but it's not about to change. So I live with it for as long as I'm there, don't expect anything different, and when it's time to move on, I move on. But I wanted more.
I have learned a lot, however, mostly as a result of having to answer questions for the visitors. They're constantly testing me and making me stretch my horizons, so I'm always doing more research, learning more. Which I love doing. But as far as learning to be a better NPS employee or resource interpreter... I haven't gotten any of that from my higher-ups.
Also, I haven't saved any money this summer like I suggested I would. Which should have been expected. But I bought several big-ticket things I've been needing/wanting. Like a new laptop and iPad. Upgraded Adobe Creative Suite.
So I'm no closer yet to my goal of having an RV and SUV. Now with the initial blast of spending out of the way, however, perhaps I can focus on my 5 and 10 year plans. Which are vague and dreamy yet. But include the RV and SUV, and traveling from park to park doing nature interpretation and Campground Hosting and ....
Something I'm afraid to even say out loud. Or rather, to even write here for your non-judgemental feedback. Cuz it's tantamount to being a bad person.
I want to live alone. I have dreamed of living alone for most of my life (including childhood), despite loving my husband who is truly a wonderful supportive man. And despite loving my children, who have become intelligent, healthy, grown adults.
So part of my dream is to earn enough to support myself, pay for my own RV and SUV and groceries, etc, and live alone.
There. I said it.
I don't want a divorce (anymore). I love my husband. I'm just sick of living with other people.
This weekend, I'm home alone (with the dogs). My husband and our grown daughter (who is out of work and lives at home) have gone to the family reunion. I probably could have gone, but I didn't really want to, so I said I had to work. Which is mostly true... I'm not sure I have enough leave hours to cover 3-5 days off... but I might. I didn't check. Because I wanted to be home alone. And now I am.
And it's bliss.
I feel like a bad person. I don't even want to be with the people I love and who I know love me unconditionally (they're proven it). I want them to continue to love me, and I don't want to hurt them, so I squelch my desire to be a hermit in the woods.
I feel like a bad person for having these feelings, although I've had them most of my life. In fact, when I was a kid, one of my friends asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. Even then, I wanted to be a hermit.
Ok - wow. This blog has gone in directions I didn't anticipate. But that's the story of my life. If you would have told me 5 years ago I'd be an uniformed park ranger now and speaking in front of groups about woodpecker and butterflies, I would have thought you were crazy. But here I am.
And there you are.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 16
-
- 14
entries - 2
comments - 20036
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The Use Of God # 2
There is times to me, that between having the Atheist trying to explain to the Theist out here in this world. Why some of us don't care to buy into a GOD belief.
I saw a member here: 'QuidEstCaritas?-' who had his comment on: ANY GODS: "God is a political control device" Which is exactly what I think also. Further into The Use of God. "God is a political control device"
In my mind. For the History of having a Jesus, Jesus was a Robot. He represented what the Jewish Culture has always believed in and Jesus was only representing what the Jewish Culture only wanted to be represented for. Everything was conditional & dictated to Jesus and became the Jewish Spokesman. That's what I believe. And I think life has more value beyond this biasness. Restricting ideas outside of a closed mindedness box of living life on Earth and the Universe. I had a saying "Penguins lead and walk among ice frolics and ice bergs. It's not all in green pastures for which I get annoyed about."
(Noting how I got my Avater here? *)
With what is all going on in the world, if it isn't the Use Of God, it is the Use of those trying to have Power to control humanity.
I have been watching Jessie Ventura on channel TruTV49 on Wednesdays on the Conspirasy Theories. And he has really been digging into the High Powers going on in this world that want to get control of us. Probably with God or something else (??? I don't know).
For me in trying to expect of finding me a woman from the Love of God is as trying to find my life's mate. I always hate it, when woman want all the focus on God rather on the them. Women that don't really want intimacy from men, but only wanting protection for themselves. Yet they still don't get it, when I tell them. I don't see any real Love from a GOD. When all hell breaks lose from trying to find the harmony.
Since I can't find this woman for my life. I would say it would be a miracle from God if I ever was able to find her. But actually if I could get that Miracle even in a world that is void of such things. That would be assume yet. It would just be the common grounds, if that would ever get noticed.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 14
-
- 47
entries - 1
comment - 19057
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Stop-gap Answers
I was posting some of this in the Lion's Den for our Recovering Atheist and it occurred to me how seriously off-topic it was so I'll repost it here for further discussion. I was thinking about topics like the End of the World, the Great Judgment, where people went when they died, what the preachers said at funerals--and how things didn't hang together. It occurred to me that a lot of stuff religion tells us and forces us to believe on pain of excommunication may be nothing but stop-gap answers. I will share some things I learned over the years that turned out to be stop-gap answers. Feel free to add your own. Maybe we'll solve a few mysteries in the process.
I realized that there were a lot of things that I wasn't supposed to notice, and if I did notice, preachers and other church people would only say things like, "How glad I am it is not in my place to judge!" Wasn't the preacher really saying: This man really was a very nasty person and never kept the rules of the church very well and by all rights he aughta be in hell but it would be incorrect for me to say so in front of all his relatives so I will play humble and ignorant and let an all-wise God be the judge.?
If THAT is what he was saying, how much other stuff was the church saying that they really never said? For example, when I was in the class for baptism as a 17 year old, the normal age for my church, the preachers and other adults told us in their wise and solemn voices that we would not understand it all now and that was okay; we would learn as we got older. Of course, we were also invited--even begged--to ask if we had any questions. So I did ask a simple question of the lady I was working with. It was just a definition for a word I didn't quite understand. She was my mother's age and a preacher's daughter so I assumed she was very wise. I never asked another question because she didn't even get what I was asking and finally told me that I would understand after my first class. I most certainly did not understand but one thing was clear: Asking questions was not the way to get answers.
Many years later I asked a deacon a burning lifelong question and all he did was quote bible verses, as though I had not read the Bible and had not sat through twenty-five years of sermons. I guess perhaps most people comprehend very little of what they hear, and think about it even less. I was made to believe that this stuff was deadly serious so I took it that way and did all within my power to learn and understand it.
So that was then. I hung around for a while longer and hit forty. I realized I was now "older." I realized something else: I was not one bit closer to answers than I had been at seventeen or 25. Hmmm. I had kept all the rules. I had gone out of my way to be very faithful and obedient to the church. I had also read the Bible and everything else I could lay hands on. Life was totally not worth living. None of the wise sayings and home remedies and sure cures helped me in the least. I had tried EVERYTHING. God and the church promised all along that doing all these things would automatically bring peace. And I had never been further from peace and happiness.
After investigating absolutely everything and weighing every last pro and con (and believe me the cons were HEAVY) I decided to get myself a university education with the goal to become a counselor. I set things up with the hope to try it out without getting myself excommunicated before I knew whether I wanted to go that route. Excommunication from the church was a very real risk IF people knew what I was doing. My strategy worked so well that people didn't find out until I chose to come out of the closet fourteen months later; I had been studying all that time. And then the universe exploded.
However, I saw it coming and I was prepared. I had made arrangements that morning to go to the modern Mennonite church the following Sunday. (It happened on a Sunday.) Immediately after these plans were in place I had the new birth experience. It was a very vivid experience of liberation, peace, and joy the likes of which I did not know humans could experience. And it happened at the precise moment that I turned my back on all I had been taught to consider holy. That carried me through the debris of the exploded universe for months until I felt a bit more solid footing. Maybe years.
Probably every last person on these forums except me would say the church I started going to was hard-core fundy. And it was. Mennonite brand charismatic fundy. Coming from a horse and buggy community where piety was measured by length of dress on women and width of hat brim on men, and where all musical instruments were banned, a church with a worship band where women turned up in shorts and cut hair and men wore the same--well, you can guess that had I not been reading Norman Vincent Peale's Guideposts for fifteen years I might have been in for a severe shock. As it was, I had worked through these issues. I saw that people were smiling and I believed it was the joy of the Lord.
I interpret it differently today but I believe it was just as genuine and just real as the solemnity of the Mennonites I had been with all my life--just a different form of the same expression. The one group believed it was disrespectful to crack a smile during service; the other group believed it was ungrateful not to dance and clap for joy. All did it to the honor and glory of God--that was the conscious intent. (Not everyone danced and clapped and it's not my nature to respond like that, so I did not feel obligated. Some people always showed up in formal dress and so did I. However, I liked the small informal group.)
Here's what I was taught about how the end of the world would happen:
Jesus came like lightening and that was it. The Great Judgment followed right after and immediately people were divided into sheep and goats and ended up in heaven or hell (I always wondered how even God himself could instantly go through the Books of Life and judge billions of people that fast but so be it; all the songs mentioned "the Great White Throne"). The confusing part was that at funerals the newly dead people were assumed to already be in their final resting place and weirdly enough it was always assumed to be pleasant no matter how kind or unkind they had been in life, no matter how well or how poorly they had followed the church rules (who were the large number of bad people who went to hell? Jesus did say very definitely that most people would end up in hell because broad is the way and wide is the gate and many there be that find it). Thus a final judgment doesn't really fit in but there absolutely has to be one because the Bible says there is one.
Another thing I found out only when my own mother passed away. I saw her in the hospital only hours before she died. I saw her again after the undertaker was done with her. I also heard the comments people made about her "peaceful" expresssion. There is the belief that the expression on the face of the dead person shows whether that person died with peace with God, whether the soul is with God. I did not see Mom when she stopped breathing. However, I don't believe she had the expression at that point that she had in the coffin. What she had in the coffin is something I had never seen. Nor had I ever seen what I saw in the hospital. These were the two extremes: one in the hospital was the face of agony and the other was the face of perfect rest. I do not believe that conscience had a single thing to do with either. I had no desire to "enlighten" the superstitions of the religious person who commented on her peace. I believed that I was seeing for the first and only time the mother she was never able to be in life. I wanted to treasure the memory.
Thus, perhaps the "final judgment" is itself nothing but a stop-gap answer for people who cannot otherwise deal with the injustices of life. I do know that when I deconverted and one of my sisters tried to reconvert me I explained about waiting all these years to get older in order to understand and I still don't understand. You know what she told me? She said, "Maybe we don't have to understand." Talk about wanting to scream! I had not waited all these years to get "older" only to be told I would never understand. THAT was a broken promise if ever there was one.
I don't care that she's another generation and not the same person who made the promise in the first place. If she considers it to be in her place to take over where Mom left off when it comes to teaching and admonishing me, then she can take on the responsibility to fill Mom's promises that Mom didn't live to deliver. And I am quite sure Mom would have said the exact the same thing, word for word. It's STOP-GAP ANSWERS WRIT LARGE. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to break stuff.
It's one more piece of evidence that perhaps I did make the right decision. Every stop-gap answer we can dig up will help even more. So feel free to share yours.
This got a bit longer and more involved than I had intended....
PART TWO
That's good Ruby. I like that word "stop-gap answers". It sums up one of the sides to religion. I've realized religion is successful with many because it covers so many different areas in the human psyche, and this is definitely one of those sides. All the questions and wonderings we have - because of our evolved intelligence - and religion provides stop-gap pseudo answers like sugar-pills to help people's mind relax and forget to ask. It's the perfect tool for political control. Give a religion to people, and you can control their minds, their will, their dreams and their actions. This is why it is successful, but also why it is so dangerous.Thank you.
The person who helped me see that there was a certain thought structure behind religion was an atheist female professor from an Orthodox Jewish background. She talked about her cousin who was such a strict Orthodox Jewish rabi that he couldn't eat at just any Kosher restaurant, it had to be the right kind of kosher. (Don't ask me the details on it because I haven't a clue; I just know there are a heirarchy of holy and more holy details in Orthodox Judaism just like there are in ultra-conservative Mennonitism. And he adhered to the most holy ones.) She said her mother went half-way from Orthodoxy and she went the rest of the way. According to the pictures I've seen of Orthodox Jewish men, the Jews are barely distinguishable from the horse and buggy Mennonite men. This lady was not many generations removed from Yiddish, which is similar to Pennsylvania German. She and I shared a definite kinship on a lot of levels.
I'm not sure if she used the word "stop-gap" but she used terms awfully similar. "Closed system" was a term she used. The course I took with her was in anthropology of religion and we looked at many different kinds of religion and their spiritual practices. This included prayer and magic and other rituals among tribes all over the world. We watched many videos of these people and their rituals. She explained about answers for when the rules don't work. And that is basically what I mean by stop-gap answers. I think that is what she meant by a closed system.
Perhaps the most commonly mentioned "rules that don't work" scenario on exC is unanswered prayer and how Christians have answers to "stop the gap" or "close the system." I was taught God answers prayer if we pray in faith. "The prayer of the righteous availeth much if it is sincere" or something along those line was an oft-quoted verse. Thus, when a prayer is not answered, people can always say, "You didn't have enough faith," or "You didn't pray hard enough," or "You weren't sincere enough," etc. "A broken heart and contrite spirit, O Lord, thou wilt not despise," was another verse often quoted to prove that God does hear--and answer--prayer IF it is earnest. But it MUST be earnest. And you must pray BELIEVING it will be answered; otherwise it won't be answered.
In a way, this differs significantly from what a lot of people on here were taught. A lot of people here say they were taught God's answer is: Yes, No, or Later. That is so "cut and dried" compared to what I was taught. But still, it's a stop-gap answer, a closed system, that let's God off the hook no matter what the out-come. It also allows for human interpretation as to what constitutes an "answer."
I saw one situation that really had me scratching my head. It was a family that believed firmly that God would heal the cancer patient in the family. They seemed to believe that God's answer could not be No because they prayed with the right kind of faith and the Bible promised. The patient died and they proclaimed that God kept his promise; the patient was now healed of his cancer because he was now in heaven where there was no cancer. When Dad's baby brother (who was like a big brother to me) died of cancer quite a few years ago, Dad called very early one morning with a similar message. He said, "Well, Menno has overcome."
I was stumped. What did he mean? I thought Menno was on the mend. Did he take a turn for the worse? Dad continued talking almost incoherently and I pieced together that Menno had died. I concluded that the battle with cancer was over, and from a faith perspective it might be said he "won" the battle in a spiritual way, kind of like the story above.
If I remember correctly, I asked Dad plainly, "Did Menno die?" He answered in the affirmative. It seemed to drain him of all energy. I never heard any of the details around Menno's death. At one point when I started asking about it Mom hushed me up and said we had to forgive people--everybody did the best they knew. I take it there may have been serious disagreement around medication and that his death may have been brought on because doctor's orders were not strictly followed. But that's a lot of guess-work build on bits and pieces of hearsay. The point here is that Dad would have known all about it if there were any dusky goings-on and he would have needed stop-gap answers like never before.
I don't believe anybody intentionally killed anybody but I believe some people in the situation may have had limited intelligence. Menno never seemed like an overly intelligent person to me and the woman he married was not a person I would have wanted to be dependent on when critical life and death decisions had to be made. I saw how she cared for her babies, which was at times not at all. I don't think it was intentional neglect so much as lack of insight. They all grew up and and that's all that counts in a community that embraces the dumb-ass because Jesus commended the poor of the earth and denigrated the proud. (Proud for them automatically means high education and high fashion.) Lack of intelligence must be borne as a cross and accepted as God's will, no matter how many generations (or centuries) of in-breeding have contributed to the situation.
Anybody see a stop-gap answer in there???
- 47
-
- 12
entries - 2
comments - 18565
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
I Just Remembered, I Have A Blog!
The Lord has healed me!!!!! Yes that's right folks. I've been touched by the healing hands of God. GLORY!!!! Praise the Lord. Bless the Lord. Amen. Amen.
Not.
No. My "healing" came about by sacrificing 2 months pay, all my sick leave and all my annual leave, to spend hundreds of dollars travelling back to the mainland and my family to spend further hundreds of dollars to be treated by a physiotherapist who knows all about physiotherapy - one whom I have used before. She did well, restoring my back to what I would call 95%. Since then, and my return home, I've been seeing the local chiropractor. Man I wish I wasn't so skeptical, or should that be afraid, of chiropractors to start with. My back is now 99.5% better. As an added bonus, the receptionist, who is also the chiro's daughter, is HOT.
I've been going to the gym to workout and swim (physiotherapist's orders). I've discovered that gymnasia are handy, because of the general nature of gymnasia, being indoors, you can do excercise without getting rained on or blown away in bad weather, like what we're having now.
It was good to catch up with The Family (ie uncles & aunts & families) after nearly 5 years of self imposed exile. My mother probably spent those years praying and begging for God to reunite her son with her husband. Then, when I arrived at an aunt's place to stay, my mother, acting under the Holy Spirit, betrayed my trust and told her husband that I was back in town. So he drives out of his way between work and home past the house where I'm staying, and sees me sitting on the front porch. So he stops, get's out of the ute, and comes over to see me.
By this stage i was ready to run away, but my aunt, who was sitting with me, tells me to just stay put, so I do. My father approaches, climbs the stairs, we hug, Italian family style. Too many confusing emotions. Always on the edge. Ready to run. Ready to fight.
Anyway, I could sense a change in him. He certainly wasn't taking me for granted any more. He was on his best behaviour. I reckon he knew that if he screwed it up this time, he would never see me again.
I reckon mother would have gone back to her church that sunday and told everyone of the wonderful thing God had done in reuniting her son with her husband. If I could respond to this it would be in this way: At what cost? What did it cost her? 10 seconds of prayer every now and then? What did it cost me? 8 months of unmitigated pain? Hundreds of dollars on incompetent (non) professionals? Thousands of dollars lost in lost income? Paying rent on a flat I'm not living in for 2 months? Immessurable cost in lost experience, lost social life, lost life? I love my mother, but sometimes...
Anyway, that allowed me to catch up with his brothers + sisters + their families (ie, uncles, aunts + cousins). Man it was good to catch up + see what had changed and what hadn't. Mostly mostly waistlines really... (lol). All my baby cousins have grown up! (and some are quite teh hotne550rz?!?! Make good gf/bf for others I suppose).
I caught up with a friend in Melbourne on the way back home. I also made some new ones, I think, including a reasonably hot, and intelligent, chick! Went for a Sat morning ride down Beach Road for old times sake. Everytime I goto or pass through Melb. lately, it just gets better and better.
Went to NZ for easter weekend. Needed to get away. Didn't get everything done/go everywhere I wanted to. Not enough time. Still, worth every cent. I think I'm catching the travel bug.
I've now been considering my options for the future. Needless to say, the future has never looked so good.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 12
-
Latest Entry
The Fence Of Morality
Last night at my parents' church one of the preachers was giving a sermon about how the reason why God gives us moral laws to follow and why hell exists is because it's like a fence to protect us from being harmed and he used the analogy of a recent news event where a tiger at a San Francisco zoo escaped from the fence and killed one of the people there. I admit that I was almost taken in by this argument and it almost had me accepting it until I realized that this was just another dressed up version of that "we can't have morals without God!" argument that's just so ridicilously pathetic. The fence analogy that God's morals keep us from being hurt and from hurting others sounds nice in theory but there are several major problems I have with it. The biggest complaint I have about it is that the entire argument is based on assumptions. First, it assumes that the fence of morality is universally wide for all moral situations. It assumes that issues of good vs evil are always black and white and ignores the fact that most moral issues fall into shades of gray and that there is almost always going to be ambguity with morals.
This is one of the reasons why I rejected Christianity because it's black and white style of thinking is very out-dated and useless and ignores situations where people have to choose between lesser evils vs greater evils. If we are faced with a situation where we have to choose between a lesser evil and a greater evil, then even if we choose the lesser evil, then we are still hurt and grieve over our choice even if it prevented an even greater immoral act. So, isn't the very fact that we still get hurt from choosing lesser evils prove that God's fence of morality failed to prevent us from being hurt? The second problem I have with this fence analogy is that it assumes that the fence of morality is the same length for all Christians.
If the length of God's fence of morality was so obviously clear that nobody could be "hurt" with it, then why is it that Christians can never agree on how long the fence is? One of the biggest problems I have with Christianity is that Christians themselves can't even agree with each other on what is moral and what isn't, so what makes them think that they are any more protected by this so called fence of morality than non-believers if they can't even agree on how long the fence is? If Christians want non-believers to start taking them seriously, maybe they should try to find some unity among themselves first. Wasn't it the bible that said to take the shard out of your own eye before you take the shard out of other people's? Another problem I have with this analogy is that it assumes that it is impossible to be hurt within the fence of morality. But Christians prove everyday that they go through the same trials and suffering that non-believers do, thus essentially proving that God's fence of morality is useless in keeping us from being hurt.
The preacher then went on some ramble about how there were some "studies" (funny how when preachers claim that there have been studies done, they never cite their sources) that showed that children felt more freedom to explore from being placed in a field with a fence, but when placed in a field without a fence, the children only explored the middle part of the field, and apparently this is proof that even children see the need for God's fences of morality. However, I disagree strongly with this assertion. I don't think this proves that we need God to create a "fence" for us. This only proves that even without God people can use their own common sense to create their own fences for themselves, so the preacher's own analogies defeated his argument. I do agree on principle that people do good things for others because it makes them feel good and that we shouldn't do hurtful things to each other because it creates feelings of distrust among us and makes living that much more difficult for us, but I don't think this has anything to do with morality coming from God. I think this is just people using common sense that if you want others to treat you the way you want to be treated, then don't act like a jerk to everyone.
-
- 11
entries - 53
comments - 16766
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Still Trying To Get To The Bottom Of It.....
When I was a kid I liked the song JOY JOY this must surely mean, jesus first and yourself last and others in between. That resonated with my natural propensity for looking after people, so I learned early to care deeply about everyone's needs. To me this has been the focus of my life, the way I thought we were meant to live to make the world a better place for all of us.
During my time as a christian I was often puzzled by people not reciprocating that. I have spent a lot of my life crying because I think deep in my heart I knew the truth but just did not want to face it in all its glory. I thought there was something deeply wrong with christians, but now I realise it is everyone, and it is considered "normal" behaviour.
Over the past few years since deconversion I keep running into the same problem, me being happy to care about how I treat other people, but them not paying much attention when I need something from them. I am a fixer, and if there is an issue I like to drag it out and discuss it with the other person, so we can fix it. What I often get though is, well, nothing. People are not interested in fixing problems if it requires effort on their part. I am very concerned with what I can do to make them feel loved or needed or wanted, but they are not on the same page as me. Because that attitude is so foreign to me, it causes me a LOT of cognitive dissonance. I just don't get what it is not to care. I want to find solutions for everything, even if that involves me giving, because that is what I do.
I have come to realise though that I am not even on the radar for other people. I completely underestimated how concerned people are with their own inner lives, and how completely unconcerned they are with the inner lives of others. I can beg, plead, cry, ask nicely, get angry, do everything I know to try and get them to listen and care about certain things, but they just......don't. I don't even know what that shit is, but I know it makes me so angry I could punch people.
I am a giver in a world of takers, but am I just meant to lie down and take it? I don't want to anymore. The only thing I can do to avoid punching people is just to accept they don't give a shit, and that irks the fuck out of me after everything I am prepared to do for them. I don't think there is any solution for this. I want them to care, but I cannot make them. Why are their wants and needs so important to me, but mine so unimportant to them?
- 11
-
- 3
entries - 0
comments - 16371
views
No blog entries yet
- 3
-
Latest Entry
My Posts On Ex-c
Sometimes I get very obsessive about my posts on the forums. Maybe I said the wrong thing or shouldn't have said it in that way or I could have said it differently or maybe I shouldn't have said it at all. I obsess over my posts and it takes awhile before I drum up the courage to look at the thread and see how people have responded. Usually, the posts I obsess about the most get buried in with everyone elses or the response is positive.
I think I'm neurotic.
Taph
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
- 13
entries - 50
comments - 15793
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Tension In My Mixed Marriage
I came out to my wife as an atheist a while ago. Shortly after she was accepting of it but she was undoubtedly very hurt by this. She was expressing frustration in that she didn't have the answers to questions that I was asking but I wont seek the help from people that have the answers. This is frustrating to me that she can live in ignorance of anything that is so important.
To make matters worse, a few months ago, I said that we would no longer tithe with my income. We would only use hers. At the time she was very accepting of it and we even selected a charity that we would donate to instead of putting our money in the offering plate. That sunday you would have thought that conversation was with an evil twin. All hell broke loose when I didnt write a check at church. Church consisted of her being one of the people who anonymously raised her hand for "special prayer" and when we got home with tears in her eyes she said that she wanted separate bank accounts because if we are not going to be in agreement on where our money needs to go, she will get a separate bank account. We make good money and have always been on the same page about money and consequently we have not had that issue in our marriage. Most marriages are plagued by money issue and we didn't have that problem for the reasons I just mentioned. I have always felt that if you can solve this problem in marriage (money problems) you have avoided the biggest hurdle. I refuse to get a separate bank account since it starts as a simple separate bank account then next thing you know we are sleeping in different rooms living two separate lives and that is not the marriage I signed up for.
For this reason I just write the stupid check. Its not worth it. I love my wife and family and if I have to go through the motions (which is very obvious by this point) to keep everybody together then so be it. I don't cry while they show passion of the christ clips, I spend time critiquing the singing and analyzing outfits. She pointed out to me that its obvious that I am going through the motions and I am a phony. I am a faker. I smile and hug people but they have all made the assumption that I am a believer. While I haven't outright declared myself atheist to our groups I have said that I have BIG questions and Big doubts about all of it. They welcome it and then presumably forget about it as it never comes up to them again.
Bringing up the issue always leads to tears since she is she is so hurt by it. Consequently, its often unmentioned so 99% of the time we are the normal loving couple with a great marriage. The "barrier" of my unbelief has faded to ALMOST not there anymore except that unmentioned 1% of the time. It tends to rear its head at the most inopportune times. While we lay intimately in bed, the "mood" is immediately killed as she says "I miss being on the same page as you" or "I'm smiling but inside I'm really still hurt" or "I wish things were back like they used to be". These are the "ice breakers" (unsolicited, off topic, out of nowhere comments) that lead her into tears and completely disrupt the evening (and usually the next morning since she cries herself to sleep over it). This part is the most frustrating for me because religion has faded in importance in our marriage but because of where its "supposed to" be, when we do talk about it, it seems like all the good times get trumped by my non-belief and once every few weeks she has to remind herself that I'm an atheist and things are not supposed to be this good.
Her wish is that I sit down with a pastor and talk about all my doubts and have them convince me that god is real. I don't want to believe in god anymore. I dont even want to try. I dont want to sit down with anybody and hear their flawed, uninformed, biased arguments. I am much happier since losing religion. There are periods where I am even losing interest in all the bible history and religious stuff from just being burned out. She forwards me articles about how religion is a "personal revelation" and that each person has to find their own path. The irony there is that having known her for as long as I have, I dont think thats the case for her.
In conclusion, just know that I have a great marriage 99% of the time but that 1% of the time sure sucks.
EDIT: and dont think for one second that my kids aren't going to be raised skeptics. THey LOVE science and we embrace that desire to learn.
- 13
-
- 10
entries - 4
comments - 15492
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Into Buddhism
I'm really getting into Buddhism now. It fits my outlook on life and truth closely. I bought the book "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Rahula. It had very good reviews from most all Buddhists, except from like one fundamentalist Buddhist troll on the internet. I read the excerpt on amazon and I was blown away by it. It's very easy to read for a book on religion.
I do not know what school of Buddhism I might follow. I do like Zen, but within Zen there is also Soto and Rinzai views. It's really not that big of deal, not like picking "the true church" in Christianity. Its just that the different schools in buddhism hold different rituals and interpretations of the core of Buddhism that all believe. None are really fighting against each other like in Christianity. So I'd follow whatever i feel is right and good for me. I believe the author of the book was a Theravada monk. I also have a "Zen for Idiots: book, but I don't know how good that is.
There is tons of Buddhists books out there, but some are innacurate, sort of "corrupted" by today's new age thinking and too much influence from other religions. But it is quite interesting studying it all. There is plenty of webpages out there to help and their forums seem to have quite open minded people. I think I may join their forums more and come here less. It seems this forum is filled with too much hate, too much ignorance. I do know I've become hateful here too with my own posts. Hate it's a natural expression of emotion, but to wallow in hatred, as is the tendency here (and in any forum), is never good, nor much productive. But at the same time, I do see people struggling to control their hatred and overcome it. It is still all interesting to watch.
I was looking for nearby Zendos, it seems most all are out in western Long Island, in the city, and also upstate New York. None out by me in eastern Long Island. No big deal, as they aren't like churches at all, but it would be interesting to talk to a teacher someday. For now I'm just reading the basics of everything.
One which inspired me was Pine Hill zendo, way out in upstate New York. On the front page it has a picture of a tree growing on a rock, with the quote from the bible “Some fell on rock, ….” (LUKE 8:11). Then says:
And, as you can see from the picture, contrary to the words in the New Testament, seeds, even a tree CAN grow on rock - even the most “deluded” of us will get IT: “ .. even if you should miss striking the earth, kensho is certain.” (HAKUIN: Rohatsu exhortation).This is the promise of Buddha. This is the promise of Daio and Hakuin; the promise of all Zen Masters up to now. Join us in this quest and see for yourself, that you are in the midst of the kingdom of heaven - and have always been.
Pine Hill's zendo for Rinzai Zen. I was looking into Rinzai because I liked samurai's and their way, Rinzai was what they followed. Of the zen schools, Rinzai's are more into Koans and teaching, while Soto's focus more into meditation (though both meditate). But that was just just why I was curious.
Anyway I found that intro on their website quite interesting. Once on a trip to a christian retreat upstate, I doodled a picture of a tree on a rock. I believe the tree was barren of leaves too. I never really knew what it meant till I found this interesting connection now. I don't believe it's anything prophetic or miraculous, but interesting my mind finally makes the connection to this now.
Also the quote that "you are in the midst of the kingdom of heaven - and have always been" was quite interesting. Nearly everyday when I went to work I would hear the words "the kingdom of heaven is inside you" ringing inside my head. This was from a verse Jesus said, refering to his spiritual kingdom, in his explaination to the Jewish Pharisees of it's nature (Luke 17:20-21). It seems it's something many that christians don't bother to read too, with their obsession for a coming earthly kingdom. There is a similar thing spoken in the Gospel of Thomas, popularized by the movie Stigmata, which was probably what made it get stuck in my head. I wasn't hearing voices or anything magical, it was just like a song that gets stuck in your head. Anyway I never knew of why it was bothering me so much. I did somewhat hear of connections to Buddhism ealier, but never looked into it. Now I just happen come across this and it's very inspiring.
Maybe my mind will shut up about it now. So that's what I'm into now. Maybe tommorrow I'll change my mind again. But I am happy with this Buddhism, a happiness I never had for quite some time. Isn't that what matters?
Check out A talk by Denko Osho and another of his, The Unattainable Way. He is a funny man. I like the humor in this Zen belief.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 10
-
- 1
entry - 0
comments - 15111
views
No blog entries yet
- 1
.jpg)
” (Sure, why not take this opportunity to proselytize?)
" (This was the ONLY comment I saw where someone seemed to actually understand what was really happening in this photo.)
There is tons of Buddhists books out there, but some are innacurate, sort of "corrupted" by today's new age thinking and too much influence from other religions. 
